A rough summary is:"How much evidence is there of women fighting on the battlefield?" Approximately none. There are some possible hints, but nothing conclusive.

There is evidence of:Women fighting is seiges.Women fighting in judical duels.Women leading armies, but not necesarily fighting or on the battlefield.Women on the battlefield carrying water for people to drink.Amazons fighting on the battlefield in mythological stories.

Lady Jane Rochester wrote:exakerly! I was looking for helpful fact, not vitriol.

Lady J

Actually, it's not quite that bad. There are a lot of interesting points brought up, it's just that some very strong oppinions are held on the subject. Besides, it was too nice an opportunity for a quip!

KedlestonCraig wrote:This one looks C15 rather than C14 and I know nothing of the context but here we go

Hmm, that's a siege situation though and I think we're all agreed that in a siege, you'd end up fighting whether you were male, female, 6 years old, diseased, crippled or ginger. It's either that or you get chopped to bits while you try injuring them with bad language alone.

See http://www.larsdatter.com/women-in-armor.htm -- the links are less "this is what fighting women of our time wear," and more "this is what we imagine ancient legendary Amazons to have worn, but because we're living in the 14th century, we imagine them to be wearing the sort of armor that people wear right now." A few personifications of Fortitude and other such allegorical sorts of armored women, too.

There is slightly more in the way of written evidence.There were instances of women commanding castles, or at least being involved in negotiating terms.There were instances, as have been mentioned of women involved in actual fighting during seiges.There are also instances when women have acted as figureheads for an army.Joan of Arc is used as an example of a woman who actually lead and fought but while she did wear armour and carry a sword she does not seem to have actually drawn it and used it-not that she lacked bravery as she led assults on more than one occasion, she also had a natural talent for where to postion cannon if accounts of her career are true.Dispite being told by numerous gunners over the years that women manned cannons as part of a family run buissness I havn't come across anything to back this up or the use of women to carry water and rescue wounded men, that job seems, from my research to have gone to pages/squires/retrievers.

Let us actually take a look at the picture, take it at face value, noting that we do not have the image reference.

1 - the woman is unarmoured, some might say it is to show a woman, as she might be less womanly if shown in harness, but then, Joan of Arc is portrayed as in harness. Others might see this as a specific theme where a specific woman, is involved in a combat.

2 - it is night time, not the usual time for battles. If this was the middle ages, which battle/siege, at night, might this be?

3- Given that a woman is portrayed fighting, something that we generally accept as far from the norm, why? what makes this woman so special? Why use up valuable painting time over a possible frivolity?

4 - The people are in what we might accept as mid 15th c onwards clothing, that might mean it is a documentary image. On the other hand we know the medievals loved their classical themes dressed as they were themselves dressed, so what time frame does this actually portray.

5 - she is on horseback, is she part of the siege break? The city gates are open. Which might mean she is an attacker, rather than a defender.

At the end of the day, one could add any interpretation, with equal validity, without knowing the context of that image.

Without seeming to be rude, it is all rather pointless unless we actually find out more about that image and others like it, I would extend that to any image held in isolation from its context and produced as 'evidence'.

It might be the magic bullet that some are seeking, it may well not be.

KedlestonCraig wrote:This one looks C15 rather than C14 and I know nothing of the context but here we go

Should have done this sooner, shouldn't I!

Okay;She's on horseback, so she's probably not a defender, all the other mounted people appear to be killing citisens, so she's probably with them.She's not wearing armour and all the other attackers are. That's a bit odd.Her hair is uncovered, which is usually reserved for queens, saints (occasional children) and other 'mythical figures'.

I would say that she's an alegorical figure. Perhaps representing a Saint who 'protected' a particular seige, or Mercy (the blow that never landed?), or possibly some mythical figure, such as Athena or even Boudica. I certainly wouldn't rely on it as evidence without knowing a lot more.